Talk:Orthoptics

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comment moved from Talk:Eye exercises[edit]

The article currently (as opposed to earlier) emphasizes very much "eye muscle training". While this might be appropriate for some parts of the world, in other parts such a training is not commonly prescribed or performed. The earlier version of the article saying "discipline dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of defective eye coordination, binocular vision, and functional amblyopia by non-medical and non-surgical methods, e.g., glasses, prisms, exercises" seems much more adequate, as "exercises" includes the eye muscle training. I'd suggest to change that part back. Any opinions? Dontaskme 01:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The current definition leads one to believe that orthoptics is just eye-muscle training, which it is not. And as you noted, the addition of “eye muscle training” is redundant as it is included in “exercises”. Similarly, the inclusion of “strabismus” and “diplopia” in the definition are also redundant in that “defective eye coordination” and “(defective) binocular vision” covers those things. AED 21:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted external link[edit]

How is the link deleted here off-topic? It contains an exercise suggested by an optometrist to counteract presbyopia! This article's title is Eye exercises. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's one specific exercise, not discussed in the article. It's also highly promotional, and certainly not something that can be used as a source. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the policies, I don't see a blanket ban on "promotional" sources, only restrictions on how they can be used, of which there are no obvious violations here, imo.) PSWG1920 (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vision therapy vs. Bates method[edit]

Ronz, what do you mean by saying this is "unsourced"? A vision therapy website was cited which noted that vision therapy is not the Bates method. The reason for that is that people frequently confuse the two. Which is also the reason to note that here. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that a vision therapy source feels the need to note that vision therapy is not the Bates method, it seems legitimate to note that here. Additionally, the Bates method is frequently equated with eye exercises (rightly or wrongly), so I feel its mention is very much on-topic. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References/sources/links[edit]

Well Ronz, I am not going to get too worked up about your latest deletions, and you may be technically right. But thanks to you, people will most likely be spending money because they didn't find what they were looking for online free of charge. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I guess I should explain why I feel this version is better. The reason is that it better informs the reader. People who search for "eye exercises" are by and large looking for information on possibly improving visual acuity (as opposed to the types of problems "orthoptics" and "vision therapy" normally address), and there are web sites selling such "eye exercise programs" for large amounts of money. The previous version of this article pointed interested readers toward such free information (without stating that the exercises actually work), and offered skeptical perspective, and the current article still does the latter. But neither Quackwatch nor Rawstron explain what the exercises are, which is a big part of what people are looking for. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've been working hard to try to get around WP:V, WP:RS, and especially WP:SELFPUB. Please don't use this article to illustrate the points you've been making. Further, this is starting to look like a pattern of promoting fringe theories, products and services. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am trying to help people avoid spending money when there is no reason to. And although I have thought a few things in the policies are overly restrictive or unclear, I still do not see any obvious violation of any policy in the current version of this article. As I noted above, there doesn't appear to be a blanket ban on "promotional" sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just going to ignore policies and guidelines that you don't like, we're not going to get far. I suggest WP:DR, maybe WP:THIRD would be a good start. Additionally, let's list each and every source, reference, link and comment on their suitability. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed this at WP:THIRD. For the benefit of anyone attempting to help, I will reiterate that I feel the previous version, reverted here, is more informative given the subject matter, and note that I did add reliable sources after reverting to an old version. In the meantime I will attempt to continue the discussions in the above sections, but just between the two of us I don't think we will get very far. PSWG1920 (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

third opinion[edit]

I'm confused about the exact problem here. as far as I can tell, the only difference between these versions is the third list item paragraph and a trailing sentence on the second list item paragraph (and the latter seems to be merely a distinction...). further, the objections offered are simply a list of wikipedia policies that have no clear referents. to be specific, I don't see how or where WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SELFPUB apply in this case.

barring a meaningful explanation of the above, I think that PSWG1920's edits are an improvement to the article. I think, however, that a disclaimer is needed to the effect that there are medical/scientific debates about the effectiveness of these methods. and I would be particularly careful with the pinhole lens item, since that is a purchasable item that has been shown to be ineffective with respect to its sellers' claims. --Ludwigs2 20:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got edit-conflicted on the third opinion; I was about to say the same thing. The external link is too promotional and should go, but the article content is pretty neutral and informative. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In April, and again in May, I tried to list problems source by source in my edit summaries. Let's get a list together of them all and go through them here, since no one seems to want to read through my edit summaries and respond to them. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that would work for me. sorry, I didn't think to look back that far. --Ludwigs2 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of refs, etc for discussion[edit]

Off topic and promotional --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is on-topic as long as this article mentions exercises which are claimed to reduce refractive errors, which include presbyopia. As for being "promotional", as I have repeatedly pointed out, there is no all-encompassing ban on promotional sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. The external links section are for articles directly related to the topic of the article, not for any and all topics mentioned in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is directly related to the topic of eye exercises. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see this as being off-topic or promotional. it is certainly eye-exercise related, is freely offered without any obvious financial interest, and the person involved has the credentials necessary to offer this kind of exercise. if he loses his credentials or his exercise is tested and refuted then I could see excluding him. as it stands it seems credible. --Ludwigs2 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See above. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain about this, or what it's use for the article is: it seems like a commercial site, advocating a particular technique above others (or if it's not that, then I don't know what it is...). I'm not certain this link would stand up to notability standards, but I honestly don't know enough about the issue to say more.--Ludwigs2 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of this source is for disambiguation. Vision therapy is often mistakenly equated with the Bates method. As well, eye exercises are often equated with the Bates method, so that is an important, relevant point here. If this source is not acceptable, perhaps another could be found which makes the same point. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reliable source --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I recently added an independent source which discusses such exercises. I still feel that Vision Improvement Site » Eye exercises and Tibetan Eye Chart are valid to show what some such exercises are. I would agree with Ludwig's statement above that there should probably be an explicit note that neither ophthalmology nor optometry generally endorse the claim that these exercises can eliminate the need for glasses. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a how to. Further, the article already has internal links to those topics. --Ronz (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article did not attempt to explain how to do any eye exercises. PSWG1920 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
with an article of this nature, I think 'how to' is probably something that needs to be included. however, I'm not comfortable with this link as it stands. if you're going to use this link at all, it would be better to link directly to specific eye-exercises, not to the page you link to. better still would be to find other pages that explain the eye exercises without the overhead of this site.--Ludwigs2 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually another, earlier version of that site which would be better as a reference in my opinion, however, it's hosted on a personal web space, and I've been led to believe that that's not acceptable. I linked to the page I did because I didn't think it would be okay to link to three different pages of the same site right in a row. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found a different source and have added it to the article. PSWG1920 (talk) 06:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reliable source --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is perfectly fine, so long as it's made clear that this is not a standard optometric exercise. at any rate, I fail to see how the reliability of the source matters if it is not being presented as a scientific entity. --Ludwigs2 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not supported by this source --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I recently added another source which decisively shows that pinhole glasses have been promoted in connection with eye exercises. I would agree with Ludwig's statement that there should be a disclaimer in this article regarding the lack of support for the claim that they can improve eyesight, and that source can be used to reference it. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
my worry here would be that there are a lot of links for these pinhole things, when they are perhaps the most questionable item on the list. I think they can be included (with cautions) but I think it would be best to reduce it to one link.--Ludwigs2 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with reducing it to one link (as of now I think the last one I added would be best), but all of the links regarding pinhole glasses there are very skeptical, none are promoting them. PSWG1920 (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok. all I was saying was that the large quantity of links might draw undue attention. --Ludwigs2 03:46, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is already a wikipedia article on pinhole glasses, I guess a See Also link is sufficient mention of them here. I added a few sources and details there as well as a link back to this article. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information is not supported by this source. Not a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Ronz (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All of those look OK to me, but not all of them seem relevant to this article. Also, Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as citations, if that's what occurred with those last two. I have restored some of the stuff you deleted because it seemed relevant to me, but left other stuff out. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added references for 9 and 10 yesterday. See here and here. As for relevance to the article, see my above comments. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced[edit]

Given the push to expand this article to cover WP:FRINGE issues and little else, I've added the unbalanced tag as well as tags for the concerns above. --Ronz (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to the unbalanced tag (I think the effort to achieve balanced consensus is maybe the most important think on WP), but I question your phrase "to cover WP:FRINGE issues and little else..." it seems to me that wp:fringe is maybe the least understood and most misapplied policy on wikipedia, at least when it comes to science-like issues. if you're going to use fringe here, I'd ask you (please) to specify how you are applying it in careful detail. if you don't, it risks becoming a blindly reactive catch-phrase.
no offense intended, and I hope none is taken. I just want to be particularly clear with respect to this policy. --Ludwigs2 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. I find the problems to be pretty obvious. Editors are providing poorly sourced information to expand the article on the fringe topics, with little or no effort to expand it on non-fringe issues. Poorly sourced information can be expected to be deleted per WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc. The fact that editors are working on expanding the article in fringe areas is just a very specific and highly problematic instance of WP:V and WP:NPOV problems. It is up to those who want to include the information to defend it's inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The non-fringe aspects, orthoptics and vision therapy, already have separate articles which are linked to here. The purpose of this short article is mainly to show the different viewpoints regarding this general topic. There are independent sources regarding the fringe eye exercise approaches. See what are currently references 4 and 7, and the Quackwatch external link. Also, the Rawstron review, cited in the last paragraph, alludes to them by stating that "no clear scientific evidence exists" for the efficacy of eye exercises in treating visual acuity or myopia specifically. References 5 and 6 are merely used to show what such exercises are. Also, it is worth noting that this article was previously a disambiguation entry. When I imported a section from the Bates method article, I removed that category, because I felt it was a bit more than that. But that is still largely the purpose, and maybe it was a mistake on my part to remove it. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a good way to focus this article, but it is not currently written this way. We also need to take care that we don't violate WP:POVFORK in the process of refocusing it. --Ronz (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another possibility would be to merge orthoptics and vision therapy with eye exercises. That would require a consensus among editors of the other two articles, but it seems like a good idea considering none of the articles are very long. The fringe material could still be mentioned as it is now, but the rest of the article would then be long enough that perhaps you wouldn't see it as getting disproportionate coverage. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm still no clear on where the FRINGE guideline applies here. for instance, let's consider that Tibetan eye chart thing. now I can see that this is not an optometric tool (at least, I have no reason to believe that it's used that way), and I can understand how you might consider that fringe if this article were specifically about therapeutic eye-exercises used in the medical industry. but the article is simply about eye exercises. I can see wanting, perhaps, to distinguish between (a) medically legitimized eye exercises, (b) eye exercises that have been uncovered as ineffectual or fraudulent, and (c) eye exercises that fall into a kind of hobby or belief system category (so long as they are notable in the general population). but I can't see why or how one might exclude the (c) category outright. how does WP:FRINGE suggest that? --Ludwigs2 01:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge[edit]

Orthoptics is not vision therapy. These 2 pages should NOT be merged. We would not merge ophthalmology and optometric's therefore I do not see why we would merge these two. Orthoptics is also NOT outdated. There are thousands of orthoptists around the world actively working, doing research and seeing patients. Orthoptics is an older profession than behavioral optometry and therefore is not encompassed by vision therapy. -Noelle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.79.214 (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have suggested merging Orthoptics and Vision therapy into Eye exercises. This article and orthoptics are both very short, and vision therapy isn't long either. A merge would be a good way to lay out the different viewpoints on this subject, and perhaps alleviate concerns about fringe material getting unbalanced coverage in this article. It appears that neither of the other two articles has had much recent activity, especially orthoptics, which had not been edited in five months. So I would say that if there is not an objection by early next week we should just go ahead and start merging. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should title them vision therapy, since that is the broadest title. II | (t - c) 00:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthoptics is an old and almost outdated term. It also tends to be specific a smaller part of what vision therapy encompasses. Eye exercisesis a colloquial term. Vision therapy is the most appropriate modern term and certainly the broadest title. --Pmgraham (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orthoptics is more established and noncontroversial than much of what is termed vision therapy these days. Orthoptics is a nice title as it does not contain the (in this context) confusing terms "vision" and "exercises". PedEye1 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more information about the orthoptic profession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lskil09 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) --Lskil09 (talk) 20:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe regional terminology is different - Orthoptics is still very much alive & kicking in the UK - http://www.orthoptics.org.uk --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested split[edit]

Can someone please show me how to split this article?? I haven't done it before & don't know how. Thanks! —(Discuss) --Lskil09 (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on how to do it - see WP:splitting, but wouldn't it make more sense just to rename this article "Orthoptics" and leave it as it is? The lead mostly talks about orthoptics anyway and actually begins with "Orthoptics is the discipline dealing with the diagnosis and treatment of defective eye movement and coordination.. You may, however, need an admin to rename it. as that title is already in use for a redirect page but I can get one to do that if you like. Richerman (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi - yes i think just renaming it Orthoptics would make more sense... (is there any reason why you may not be able to do it?) - that'd be much appreciated, tho if you want me to do it perhaps i could have a go --Lskil09 (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the main article title should he Orthoptics, with perhaps a chapter regarding any exercises. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that Orthoptics needs its own article, there does appear to be a lot of information on this page which doesn't strictly (or technically) belong under orthoptics (such as the section on 'behavioural vision therapy' or 'behavioural optometrists'). I think ultimately this 'eye exercises' page needs to exist as a connecting disambiguation page between these (at least two) different topics, as well as any others. – Quoth (talk) 07:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy between this page and Behavioral Optometry page[edit]

"The methods used are backed by clinical studies and publications in peer-reviewed journals", the unqualified statement on this page states. Indeed, there have been clinical studies, the best of which (ie peer-reviewed) show absolutely no benefit of behavioural optometry. For this reason, behavioral optometrists are considered fringe-practice optometrists, similar to alternative-medicine general practitioners. I will delete or amend this statement unless someone objects. 03:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.138.48 (talk)

There was no need for all that stuff in this article. I've cut the section down and added a link to the Behavioral Optometry article. Richerman (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help with DVD section[edit]

Hi - could any of you Orthoptists out there resolve Talk:Dissociated_Vertical_Deviation#Diagnosis_conflicts_with_Treatment_.21 ?

Ta --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Orthoptics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Orthoptics&oldid=1203025936"